You apparently continue to not see the gap between what might be reasonable and what might be (say) strictly legal, and indeed where you might be forestalled from doing even reasonable things, when exposed to a potentially very large selection of busy-bodies.
I'm a fine upstanding pillar of the community (etc) and supporter of the law, but I would not want all my private activities from drinking and Web browsing to business deals carried out on the public stage. Look what a mess "Big Brother" is for example.
If you are only prepared to do things that you would do in the full glare of the public eye, how will you invent the NextBigThing(TM), or do business deals, meet a new partner, have sex, go to the toilet or even get a full body wash without someone being offended? None of those things is inherently unreasonable.
But here is the nub: whose definition of wrong? Since that's radically different if it's the most narrow-minded at the party or the most-narrow-minded underworked government official anywhere in the world that you might wish to visit in the future.
Or official/journalist in your own country if the rules change and your OK-at-the-time behaviour is newly deemed "wrong", given that the Internet is not prone to forgetting and moving on in the way that your fellow party-goes probably would...
So all laws are correct and right and should be observed at all times? No one should drink under-age (by local law), take drugs currently considered illegal (by local law), read books considered subversive *in the future or in another jurisdiction that they may ever want to do business with or visit* even if legal at the time?
Privacy is not just about "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" (which is not the point: eg tell me here what's your salary and favourite sexual position and partner) but also about elbow room to get things wrong, IMHO.
I agree with a lot of that, especially in theory, but I was referring to the notion of forwarding my private emails wholesale without any good reasons/defences such as you mention above.
So, I still think that the presumption is that you should not publish the *verbatim text* of private emails without good reason. If you paraphrase, for example, then copyright probably does not apply, though in places such as France privacy laws may still, IANAL.
In general, IMHO, forwarding on my private email to you without permission is in violation of my copyright, ie I haven't given you permission to copy it to other people, possibly for very good commercial/privacy/other reasons.
At the very least it's pretty damn rude.
*However*, there may be many sorts of ways in which I gave implicit permission. For example if it's work related and not obviously super private. Getting someone else involved in the To list may be just the right thing to do.
And once, when I was editor of a technical rag and someone rather senior at a major US semiconductor company sent me a rant about what an arse I was/am, and didn't say NOT FOR PUBLICATION... Well, letters to the editor are for publishing, yes? (So we had a nice little round-up in print of commentary from major competitors about how maybe, just maybe, in this case, I wasn't the arsehole in the exchange. Sweet revenge and actually rather proved my point at the time that was being so violently disputed I think.)
But you do need good grounds IMHO before disclosing private correspondence: the other party has a stake in it too and it's not just "yours" unless say you paid for it "work for hire"...
You kinda can, eg with EntroPay that I was a founder of, you can create a new card (new number) with just enough credit/balance on it to support the transaction you want to do.
Bad luck on losing the sail. I had some tiny direct extra stake in the Planetary Soc's solar sail attempts and still have a little on their latest as a member. I'd really like to see this work as it seems so much more elegant than just throwing more chemicals at space travel.
Reminds us that not much in space is routine; indeed it's still rocket science.
I'm the result of an integer overflow in a Fortran electron-orbitals program (with attendant flashing error light on the console) so far as I know. Programmer (f) meet researcher (m), cue music, flashing lights (oh, already had that), music (possibly Teletypes and card readers for percussion),..., profit.
Nothing says that you can't have a separate route for getting approximate answers quickly in parallel with exact answers slowly. Indeed 'emotional' reasoning seems to be an example of the former: "That's not fair!" vs "That leaves me 6.8% out of pocket!"
So the claim is that our brain is a field-programmable gate array (for economy and flexibility and performance) that takes time to re-arrange to accommodate different sorts of tasks.
No, if you never give anything freely yourself including your time then refusing to see that there might be value in others' generosity is at the very least rude and selfish, indeed probably sociopathic. You don't need to be a chef to understand that a chef could be working hard and dismissing their training and effort out of hand is foolish even if it's not what you choose to do, and you don't need to be a cook to see the value in making the food for a soup kitchen has value in and beyond the cooking.
"If they don't get off the property, yes."
That's exactly what the persistent vandals were refusing to do.
Great, so I guess you'll never ever do any volunteer work where there's the slightest chance that a bored teenager will mess up your work or waste your time just for the hell of it. So indeed so won't in fact volunteer at all?
Slashdot Mirror
You apparently continue to not see the gap between what might be reasonable and what might be (say) strictly legal, and indeed where you might be forestalled from doing even reasonable things, when exposed to a potentially very large selection of busy-bodies.
I'm a fine upstanding pillar of the community (etc) and supporter of the law, but I would not want all my private activities from drinking and Web browsing to business deals carried out on the public stage. Look what a mess "Big Brother" is for example.
If you are only prepared to do things that you would do in the full glare of the public eye, how will you invent the NextBigThing(TM), or do business deals, meet a new partner, have sex, go to the toilet or even get a full body wash without someone being offended? None of those things is inherently unreasonable.
Rgds
Damon
But here is the nub: whose definition of wrong? Since that's radically different if it's the most narrow-minded at the party or the most-narrow-minded underworked government official anywhere in the world that you might wish to visit in the future.
Or official/journalist in your own country if the rules change and your OK-at-the-time behaviour is newly deemed "wrong", given that the Internet is not prone to forgetting and moving on in the way that your fellow party-goes probably would...
Rgds
Damon
So all laws are correct and right and should be observed at all times? No one should drink under-age (by local law), take drugs currently considered illegal (by local law), read books considered subversive *in the future or in another jurisdiction that they may ever want to do business with or visit* even if legal at the time?
Privacy is not just about "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" (which is not the point: eg tell me here what's your salary and favourite sexual position and partner) but also about elbow room to get things wrong, IMHO.
Rgds
Damon
That's going to make for a very dull life. I don't want to be at any parties you're hosting on that basis!
Rgds
Damon
I agree with a lot of that, especially in theory, but I was referring to the notion of forwarding my private emails wholesale without any good reasons/defences such as you mention above.
So, I still think that the presumption is that you should not publish the *verbatim text* of private emails without good reason. If you paraphrase, for example, then copyright probably does not apply, though in places such as France privacy laws may still, IANAL.
Rgds
Damon
a) Copyright is there and the Berne convention applies more or less world-wide.
b) The Constitution and Bill of Rights *does not* apply worldwide and I am not in the US.
So, by treaty, I believe I have more "rights" to stop you publishing the verbatim text of my private emails to you than you have to publish them.
Yes, copyright is messy, and I'd prefer not to use it, but it applies cross border.
And yes I'm not claiming to be able to stop you forwarding "ideas", I'm talking about forwarding my text as is.
Rgds
Damon
Sure: my point is that it is NOT reasonable to assume that it's OK to forward something verbatim or in large part UNLESS one has a good reason.
Ie the default should be to assume that you have no automatic right to do so.
Copyright would only be one reason.
Rgds
Damon
I don't agree.
In general, IMHO, forwarding on my private email to you without permission is in violation of my copyright, ie I haven't given you permission to copy it to other people, possibly for very good commercial/privacy/other reasons.
At the very least it's pretty damn rude.
*However*, there may be many sorts of ways in which I gave implicit permission. For example if it's work related and not obviously super private. Getting someone else involved in the To list may be just the right thing to do.
And once, when I was editor of a technical rag and someone rather senior at a major US semiconductor company sent me a rant about what an arse I was/am, and didn't say NOT FOR PUBLICATION... Well, letters to the editor are for publishing, yes? (So we had a nice little round-up in print of commentary from major competitors about how maybe, just maybe, in this case, I wasn't the arsehole in the exchange. Sweet revenge and actually rather proved my point at the time that was being so violently disputed I think.)
But you do need good grounds IMHO before disclosing private correspondence: the other party has a stake in it too and it's not just "yours" unless say you paid for it "work for hire"...
Rgds
Damon
Thanks for the gratuitous rude stereotyping.
Damon
You kinda can, eg with EntroPay that I was a founder of, you can create a new card (new number) with just enough credit/balance on it to support the transaction you want to do.
Rgds
Damon
Bad luck on losing the sail. I had some tiny direct extra stake in the Planetary Soc's solar sail attempts and still have a little on their latest as a member. I'd really like to see this work as it seems so much more elegant than just throwing more chemicals at space travel.
Reminds us that not much in space is routine; indeed it's still rocket science.
Rgds
Damon
I'm the result of an integer overflow in a Fortran electron-orbitals program (with attendant flashing error light on the console) so far as I know. Programmer (f) meet researcher (m), cue music, flashing lights (oh, already had that), music (possibly Teletypes and card readers for percussion), ..., profit.
Does that count? B^>
Rgds
Damon
Nothing says that you can't have a separate route for getting approximate answers quickly in parallel with exact answers slowly. Indeed 'emotional' reasoning seems to be an example of the former: "That's not fair!" vs "That leaves me 6.8% out of pocket!"
Rgds
Damon
That's wouldn't contradict TFA, it might simply compound the problem for example.
Rgds
Damon
So the claim is that our brain is a field-programmable gate array (for economy and flexibility and performance) that takes time to re-arrange to accommodate different sorts of tasks.
Sounds entirely sensible to me.
But distracted me too long to get first post.
Rgds
Damon
And the acids, I guess?
Rgds
Damon
No, if you never give anything freely yourself including your time then refusing to see that there might be value in others' generosity is at the very least rude and selfish, indeed probably sociopathic. You don't need to be a chef to understand that a chef could be working hard and dismissing their training and effort out of hand is foolish even if it's not what you choose to do, and you don't need to be a cook to see the value in making the food for a soup kitchen has value in and beyond the cooking.
"If they don't get off the property, yes."
That's exactly what the persistent vandals were refusing to do.
Rgds
Damon
So, we're back to where we were and it *does* seem reasonable to involve the law in its role as peace keeper then?
And if you aren't going to volunteer then I think you exclude yourself from the set of people entitled to judge how valuable volunteers' time is(n't).
Rgds
Damon
Great, so I guess you'll never ever do any volunteer work where there's the slightest chance that a bored teenager will mess up your work or waste your time just for the hell of it. So indeed so won't in fact volunteer at all?
Rgds
Damon
Does that count as a Trojan article?
Rgds
Damon
There are other more positive things that they could be doing with their time whether you or they value it financially.
And maybe really severe vandalism does force these people to put aside paid work and time with their friends and family to do clear-up for example.
Do you mind if people piss your time away for no good reason?
Rgds
Damon
Please note the *detection* part too.
If extra time has to be spent monitoring for malicious changes then that is a significant burden.
Rgds
Damon
Detection and fixing takes time (and good will), and time is not free. Nor is reputational damage.
Criminal damage is not necessarily limited to physical objects.
Rgds
Damon
I don't want any more non-essential accounts. I'd just stop editing entirely. I'm sure I'm not alone.
My fixes are small but they generally stick, so I think they are deemed useful.
Rgds
Damon
Oh, yes, GEM, I thought I was the only one who remembered that. Our bug-fix library on top of GEM was bigger than GEM itself!
And OnT, I saw Win 1 running at Atari in the UK on a visit, possibly on an Atari, around then.
Rgds
Damon